Slate Auto's budget EV truck jumps above $20,000 as Trump's bill ends federal tax credits

[midian182]

In a nutshell: Slate Auto, the EV startup that promised to make an all-American electric pickup and sell it under $20,000, will no longer be placing the vehicle in that price bracket. The increase is because of Donald Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which will end federal EV tax credits in September.

There's been plenty of excitement surrounding the Slate Truck, the first vehicle from the Jeff Bezos-backed Slate Auto. Thanks to its no-frills design, including plastic body panels, a lack of touchscreen, radio, or Bluetooth, and other stripped-down elements, it was set to arrive with a sub-$20,000 price.

However, the truck's low selling point included the application of the $7,500 federal EV tax credit to its price. Unfortunately for interested buyers, Trump's bill, which is being signed into law later today, will cause the incentive to end in September.

Slate Auto has updated its website to reflect the change. It now shows the truck with an expected price of "mid-twenties," indicating that it hasn't settled on an exact price yet.

Slate was prepared for this event. It had always included the warning that the truck's base model might be more expensive than $20,000 as federal incentives were "subject to change."

Manufacture of the truck won't start until the end of 2026 at the earliest. The company is highlighting the numerous customization options available, such as battery capacites, pre-installed accessories like wraps, and upgrade kits that convert the truck into an SUV – it's possible that few customers were intending to buy the cheapest base model.

Like Tesla, Slate is using a direct-to-consumer model for sales of its truck. There is no dealership network; customers can preorder one online for a $50 deposit and pick it up at regional centers or opt for home delivery at an additional cost.

ELON NEVER WANTED AN EV MANDATE OR SUBSIDIES

Elon's opposition to the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' has never been about its removal of EV tax credits or the EV mandate, it's simply about his passionate opposition to rising government debt.

He knew at the time he endorsed Trump that… https://t.co/nsZTRrDmSZ pic.twitter.com/yC2ZfHQSjA

– Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) July 1, 2025

The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act is the reason behind the public fallout between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Musk says his opposition to the bill isn't related to it ending EV tax credits; he says it's over his opposition to rising government debt, which it is expected to increase by $3.3 trillion.

Permalink to story:

Slate Auto's budget EV truck jumps above $20,000 as Trump's bill ends federal tax credits

 

[Theinsanegamer]

So, it was never a $20k vehicle, it was a $27,500 vehicle that relied on corporate welfare to hit that magic number.

Compare it to a similarly priced XL ford maverick, and the difference is just laughable in how this thing is outfitted.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

So, it was never a $20k vehicle, it was a $27,500 vehicle that relied on corporate welfare to hit that magic number.

Compare it to a similarly priced XL ford maverick, and the difference is just laughable in how this thing is outfitted.

-The Maverick does have the benefit of economies of scale and being "subsidized" by the remainder of Ford's fleet.

The Slate, if it gains any traction (hur) might be able to hit that $20k price point or even lower as they scale up (or just get bought out by one of the big boys).

 

[NumberNine]

No plan survives reality completely intact.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

-The Maverick does have the benefit of economies of scale and being "subsidized" by the remainder of Ford's fleet.

The Slate, if it gains any traction (hur) might be able to hit that $20k price point or even lower as they scale up (or just get bought out by one of the big boys).

The maverick was designed as a $20k truck in 2022, and was designed for ~30k units a year. Ford was taken by surprise when they sold out in 6 weeks.

The slate has no right being that expensive. Look at it, it DOESNT HAVE A RADIO. I know this gets said about EVs a lot, but the Slate is a glorified go-kart. It barely has an interior, a pathetic range, and tows less then a corolla. It's comparable to that cheap Toyota stout truck sold overseas, you know, the one that costs $10k. The maverick starts at $28k, and in its base config can tow twice what the slate can tow, will get you 45+ MPG, and can be configs for another few thousand to have AWD and a 4k tow rating.

The Slate is just way too pricy for the market its aiming at. I think they were banking hard on that EV tax credit to keep the price low.

 

[New Day]

No plan survives reality completely intact.

Intact, like many words, = infinity (or 1) and less. And semantically so: no plan survives. No need for intact. I tell ya, all ya all speaking conservationally would reduce compute and energy use by orders of magnitude.

 

[p51d007]

Take away ALL tax credits that subsidize retail products. Let the MARKET make the decision instead of
pushing one brand, over another. EV's, wind, solar. It should be the market that decides if a product
is worthwhile, not some government welfare.

 

[scavengerspc]

It should be the market that decides if a product
is worthwhile, not some government welfare.

Before I decide to make a list, I'm sure you mean that in ALL areas of commerce. Right?
Any exceptions?
I never have and will never believe in such idiocy because "the market" has a terrible track record and will go a majority towards lower costs, not quality, and certainly not towards any reasonably intelligent end game. This case, fossil fuel in vehicles for example, has been slowly choking them for over 100 years.

Good stuff here on the subject:

“Let the Market Decide” Is the Stupidest Phrase in Human History

Only a delusional corporate sycophant could possibly believe such an insane idea

survivingtomorrow.org

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Before I decide to make a list, I'm sure you mean that in ALL areas of commerce. Right?
Any exceptions?
I never have and will never believe in such idiocy because "the market" has a terrible track record and will go a majority towards lower costs, not quality, and certainly not towards any reasonably intelligent end game. This case, fossil fuel in vehicles for example, has been slowly choking them for over 100 years.

Good stuff here on the subject:

“Let the Market Decide” Is the Stupidest Phrase in Human History

Only a delusional corporate sycophant could possibly believe such an insane idea

survivingtomorrow.org

That's because you are ignoring the thousands of products you take for granted every day and only focus on a handful that annoy you or make the news. Then concluding the market doesn't work.

 

[DirtyLoad]

Take away ALL tax credits that subsidize retail products. Let the MARKET make the decision instead of pushing one brand, over another. EV's, wind, solar. It should be the market that decides if a product is worthwhile, not some government welfare.

Don't forget to remove all the fossil fuel subsidies at the same time. Not fair to subsidize oil/gas but not electric/wind/solar.

 

[scavengerspc]

Don't forget to remove all the fossil fuel subsidies at the same time. Not fair to subsidize oil/gas but not electric/wind/solar.

You beat me to it but yep, check this out:

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

"Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually"

300,000 EVs Claimed $2 Billion In Tax Breaks, And You Helped Fund It | Carscoops

Under the old system, EV buyers would only get the credit after the following year's tax return

www.carscoops.com

"More than $2 billion worth of tax credits have been provided to buyers of electric vehicles this year in the US"
It's also worth noting that the $2B includes charging infrastructure investments.

That's because you are ignoring the thousands of products you take for granted every day and only focus on a handful that annoy you or make the news. Then concluding the market doesn't work.

??
Did I miss something? I'm not sure how that relates to "let the market decide"
What I mean is if sales are the only measure then the market once decided the Chevy Vega and fast food was king.
The free market is the armpit of US commerce.

 

[Tom Yum]

Intact, like many words, = infinity (or 1) and less. And semantically so: no plan survives. No need for intact. I tell ya, all ya all speaking conservationally would reduce compute and energy use by orders of magnitude.

The correct expression is 'No plan survives contact with the enemy', or just 'No plan survives first contact'.

Ultimately it is referring to the same observation that rarely does reality match what was predicted during the planning process, because correctly predicting the thousands of cascading cause and effect events that makes up 'the future' is bloody hard.

The flipside of that expression is another expression 'Plans are nothing, planning is everything', I.e. the benefit of plans lies in the process of planning, not the end product.

 

[SRB]

You beat me to it but yep, check this out:

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

"Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually"

300,000 EVs Claimed $2 Billion In Tax Breaks, And You Helped Fund It | Carscoops

Under the old system, EV buyers would only get the credit after the following year's tax return

www.carscoops.com

"More than $2 billion worth of tax credits have been provided to buyers of electric vehicles this year in the US"
It's also worth noting that the $2B includes charging infrastructure investments.


??
Did I miss something? I'm not sure how that relates to "let the market decide"
What I mean is if sales are the only measure then the market once decided the Chevy Vega and fast food was king.
The free market is the armpit of US commerce.

The problem is that the vast majority of these subsidies you're talking about are "Energy Subsidies", not specific to oil and gas. and are mostly in the tax code. Meanwhile, the green legislation that's been written over the last 10 years IS tailored to incentivize exclusively "green" power and transportation.

Here in Texas, for example, the state is looking at financing and building their own natural gas power plants because regulations and ESG has made it so they can't find financing or backers willing to build them due to the amount money flowing to green energy.

I could not agree more. Cut out all of the preferences, regulations, and money for both sides and see what happens on a level playing field.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Did I miss something? I'm not sure how that relates to "let the market decide"
What I mean is if sales are the only measure then the market once decided the Chevy Vega and fast food was king.
The free market is the armpit of US commerce.

Your reasoning is I don't like X therefore "the market" is bad.

Yes, YOU would be happier if YOU got to decide what people bought. The benevolent dictator that knows better is an attractive option -- for the dictator. Unfortunately, everyone else would not be happier.

The free market lets everyone decide -dynamically- on what they want to spend their money on even if it is big macs and beanie babies. It is the most efficient system to maximize the value delivered to every person in the system by far.

Also, US commerce has few free markets so you aren't even hating what you think you are.

 

[p51d007]

Don't forget to remove all the fossil fuel subsidies at the same time. Not fair to subsidize oil/gas but not electric/wind/solar.

I agree 100%. Let the market decide!

 

[scavengerspc]

The free market lets everyone decide -dynamically- on what they want to spend their money on even if it is big macs and beanie babies. It is the most efficient system to maximize the value delivered to every person in the system by far.

Ok, but looks like an agreement is not in the cards man.
But the example I gave above (the Vega and fast food) are just 2 of thousands of examples where cost played the factor in the market. Not which product is best.
The free market is just a horrible way to determine what's best. Only what's cheap.

My view is that the free market is only reasonably applicable when the choices are all the same type of items or services. Like power companies or ISP's.

As a side note, I treat myself to fast food maybe 4 or 5 times a year, and the ONLY Vega I ever liked had a 327!

I agree 100%. Let the market decide!

Ok, but even if the winner is simply because it's the cheapest?

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Ok, but looks like an agreement is not in the cards man.
But the example I gave above (the Vega and fast food) are just 2 of thousands of examples where cost played the factor in the market. Not which product is best.
The free market is just a horrible way to determine what's best. Only what's cheap.

Only what's cheap? Because that happens in some price sensitive areas that you chose?

Yes people eating fast food are generally desiring faster and cheaper food. Shocker.

Now consider ALL food. Some people buy fast food, some buy elegant dinners, some buy vegan, and some buy groceries to cook at home. If only what's cheap wins then 100% of people would buy groceries because they are truly the cheapest.

What is really happening is that people are considering all of the features and price of products and picking what they want in that moment. Which means a chef on a road trip may stop at subway because of the speed and convenience to get back on the road. Or a poor person may go to a fancy dinner because it's their anniversary.

See how it's more complicated than "everyone" (I.e. many people) buy fast food which is "cheaper" (than some things) therefore free market sucks because only cheapest things win always.

Yes price matters - a lot - if all of the product/service features (including convenience, wait time, brand image, social benefits, quality, power usage, performance, etc.) are equal in the eyes of the customer. E.g., Who wouldn't want a 5090 for $300 rather than $3000?

Note: I had to google the Vega to see what it is, so maybe a car from the 70s is not the best example since you claim there are thousands.

My view is that the free market is only reasonably applicable when the choices are all the same type of items or services. Like power companies or ISP's.

As a side note, I treat myself to fast food maybe 4 or 5 times a year, and the ONLY Vega I ever liked had a 327!

 

[scavengerspc]

Only what's cheap? Because that happens in some price sensitive areas that you chose?

Yes people eating fast food are generally desiring faster and cheaper food. Shocker.

Now consider ALL food. Some people buy fast food, some buy elegant dinners, some buy vegan, and some buy groceries to cook at home. If only what's cheap wins then 100% of people would buy groceries because they are truly the cheapest.

What is really happening is that people are considering all of the features and price of products and picking what they want in that moment. Which means a chef on a road trip may stop at subway because of the speed and convenience to get back on the road. Or a poor person may go to a fancy dinner because it's their anniversary.

See how it's more complicated than "everyone" (I.e. many people) buy fast food which is "cheaper" (than some things) therefore free market sucks because only cheapest things win always.

Yes price matters - a lot - if all of the product/service features (including convenience, wait time, brand image, social benefits, quality, power usage, performance, etc.) are equal in the eyes of the customer. E.g., Who wouldn't want a 5090 for $300 rather than $3000?

Note: I had to google the Vega to see what it is, so maybe a car from the 70s is not the best example since you claim there are thousands.

I don't disagree with much of that, it's just a bit deeper than I wanted to take it.
I really just wanted to go up to the cheaper wins, even though rarely better, line. That even though cheaper sells more, it's certainly not the option most would choose if other choices were priced competitively. That is the products' success, but a failure of the market.

I had to google the Vega to see what it is

Then you are the lucky one. It was even worse than the Pinto, minus those fires, of course.
I read in Motor Trend when I was a kid that among other things, the heads on those things would warp if it got hot, but BEFORE it overheated.
Way too many brand new early Vegas didn't make it home because the engine would cut loose and started the tasteless "stillborn engines" joke.

so maybe a car from the 70s is not the best example since you claim there are thousands.

I believe it was a perfect example because Vega sales reached nearly 1.5 million cars in the first 3 years. And brother, they were FAR from the best choice. The opposite, actually.

 

[Rudyduu]

The maverick was designed as a $20k truck in 2022, and was designed for ~30k units a year. Ford was taken by surprise when they sold out in 6 weeks.

The slate has no right being that expensive. Look at it, it DOESNT HAVE A RADIO. I know this gets said about EVs a lot, but the Slate is a glorified go-kart. It barely has an interior, a pathetic range, and tows less then a corolla. It's comparable to that cheap Toyota stout truck sold overseas, you know, the one that costs $10k. The maverick starts at $28k, and in its base config can tow twice what the slate can tow, will get you 45+ MPG, and can be configs for another few thousand to have AWD and a 4k tow rating.

The Slate is just way too pricy for the market its aiming at. I think they were banking hard on that EV tax credit to keep the price low.

Slapping "glorified" on anything is just a lazy opinion. Everything could be distilled down to a "glorified" something. A well made sandwich is just a glorified hot pocket, a Ferrari is just a glorified Fiat, any respected watch brand is just a glorified Timex. Comments like yours just shows how little you know about the subject. How are you forming an opinion about a vehicle that isn't for sale, hasn't had any third party reviews and isn't even in production?

The average price of a new car sold in the US is $48k the average used car price is $25k. So how is this vehicle's price, of which no one knows, is too expensive?

Just like another person wrote the Maverick was built by a massive company that can benefit from economies of scales. Ford didn't have to build a new factory, fill it with new equipment and train new workers while not selling anything to fund the development and production of this new vehicle. The Maverick isn't an electric vehicle either.

You don't know the cost of creating manufacturing and bringing a vehicle from concept to production. All you need to do is look at all the startup companies that have looked for investment based on a concept product that never made it to production to understand how difficult it is.